Full Shell
A: The aff must specify what type of rehabilitative programs he or she advocates for in
the form of a text in the 1AC. The text must be clearly delineated from other arguments
via spacing or bolding.
B:
C:
Weighing groundI don’t know the scope of your impacts because I don’t know what you defend doing.
This makes weighing impossible because I don’t know how much of your benefits you
can claim. The size of the programs and the method used clearly affects how much you
can solve.
And, saying you defend all links is impossible since
Firstly, programs have entirely different methods that overlap – you can’t psychoanalyze,
assign community service, and give them cognitive therapy all at the same time. Means
under your interp, the aff defends a contradictory advocacy, which means you’d have 0
ground.
Secondly, that’s worse for weighing since it’s impossible to compare two specific
systems. Reasons why a restorative justice advantage is good are not competitive with a
disad to MST.
[And specificity of programs affects weighing even under means based theories – for
example, a turn would be given stronger weight if you defended shock therapy than
vocational programs]
Weighing ground is key since comparison gets arguments closer to the ballot.
2. Ground
There is no possibility for 1AR shift underneath my interp because you are bound to an
advocacy that can be referenced during and after the round. Anything else risks
nullification of 100% of my constructive ground since you can re-clarify what you
defended in the 1AR to escape disads and NCs. Ground is key to fairness since we both
need arguments to win.
Prefer a text since I can hold you to it as opposed to CX questions we don’t have
memorized and can’t access later.
And reasons why CX is better don’t prove that a text isn’t also good – we can still ask
clarification questions in my world.
But, CX is primarily for strategy, not to find out what you defend, so I shouldn’t have to
ask. And this outweighs time spent outlining your advocacy – that takes seconds as
opposed to a line of questioning that can last minutes.
Short Voter
Fairness- your ballot asks who did the better debating, not the better cheating which is
impossible to evaluate if someone has a structural disadvantage. Use competing
interpretations; my standards determine what is reasonable. Drop the debater: the
substantive level of the debate is skewed, you’ve claimed advantages by running the
unfair arguments that have altered my time – it’s unfair if you read a million unfair
arguments and kick them when I read theory.
[No RVIs, you get a 2-1 advantage since could’ve chosen to run a counter interp or
access fairness with you bite or even a new shell. It’s harder for me to win – my offense
to fairness is in the form of a violation, you just prove your position is fair and you win.
Also, the chilling effect, if RVIs, I’m incentivized not to run theory to check abuse,
meaning affs get to be as abusive as they want.]
Long Voter
Fairness- your ballot asks who did the better debating not the better cheating which is
impossible to evaluate if someone has a structural disadvantage.
Use competing interpretations, since I don’t know what you think is reasonable. My
standards should be a metric.
This implies an offense defense paradigm on theory; interps are preferable if there are
proactive reasons to prefer them, not just no abuse claims.
Even if reasonability, still use offense defense since mitigation should never be sufficient
to win, otherwise one million no warrant arguments win the theory debate.
[Competing interps is about setting a rule we should debate underneath, so there needs to
be an explicit counter-interpretation. I can’t weigh the preferability of a world they
haven’t outlined. This is not a norms argument: we still need a defined rule to tell us
what is good in this round.]
Drop the debater: the substantive level of the debate round is skewed, you’ve claimed
structural advantages by running the unfair arguments in the fisrt place that have altered
my strategy and time. I wouldn’t have engaged other levels if I had known the argument
would just be dropped.
No RVIs, you get a 2-1 advantage since could’ve chosen to win off my theory or access
fairness with a new shell or you bite. You still structurally access the fairness voter, but
its bad if one debater can win off of proving they’re consistent with fairness and the other
debater has to prove a proactive violation. Also, the chilling effect, if RVIs, I’m
incentivized not to run theory to check abuse, meaning affs get to be as abusive as they
want.
AT It Would Exclude Neg Positions
1. This is just a reason why narrow affs are bad – you can defend all programs, you just
have to specify that you did.
2. I accept that trade off – if I accept that I would rather get better weighing than more
positions, then there’s no abuse
AT I Would’ve Granted You The Ground
1. Proves the abuse – you clarify in the 1ar, but if I hadn’t run the shell you would’ve
shifted
2.